Search This Blog

Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

The increase in CO2 is not due to humans

The increase in CO2 is not due to humans, therefore alarmism and all the money spent on it has no basis.

Anthony Cox

This is a key issue: whether humans are responsible for all or most of the increase in atmospheric CO2. If they are not then it does not matter if alarmists believe that CO2 is the dominant greenhouse gas, which it is not because the increase is natural. Human CO2 is a very small % of the total CO2 going into the atmosphere, The % of human CO2 going into the atmosphere is shown by Figure 7.3, AR4, 3.67% (218.2 GT divided by 8 GT):

The reabsorption of CO2 does not distinguish between human and natural CO2, so the human contribution to the increase is 3.67% of 1.5%. This amount, the human contribution has not changed in 150 years. The human contribution to the increase in atmospheric CO2 is called the airborne fraction. The AF has not changed:

This paper by Knorr finds 40% of human emissions remains in the atmosphere. This is NOT sufficient to explain the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere:

In this graph by Ian Hill based on Knorr’s paper, the yellow line shows the AF of human CO2 remaining in the atmosphere. It is below the level of growth of CO2 shown by the green line. Human emissions cannot be the cause of all of the increase in CO2

A new paper by professor Hermann Harde estimates the human contribution to the increase in CO2 as between 4.3 – 15%:

The other part of the alarmist argument for humans being the cause of atmospheric increase is the isotope distinction between C12 and C13. Alarmists argue that the increase in C12 relative to C13 CO2 proves emissions from the burning of fossil fuel is the cause of the increase in CO2. However, this cannot establish human responsibility for the increase in CO2 as professor Tom Segalstad explains at section 10 of his paper:

From the measured delta-13-C values in atmospheric CO2 we can by isotopic mass balance also calculate that the amount of fossil-fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is equal to or less than 4%, supporting the carbon-14 "Suess Effect" evidence. Hence the IPCC model is neither supported by radioactive nor stable carbon isotope evidence (Segalstad, 1992; 1993; 1996).

that while fossil fuels are richer in C12 than the atmosphere, so too is plant life on Earth, and there isn’t a lot of difference (just 2.6%) in the ratios of C13 to C12 in plants versus fossil fuels. (Fossil fuels are, after all, made in theory from plants, so it’s not surprising that it’s hard to tell their “signatures” apart). So if the C13 to C12 ratio is falling (as more C12 rich carbon is put into the air by burning fossil fuels) then we can’t know if it’s due to man-made CO2 or natural CO2 from plants.

-->

It is therefore the case that humans are not responsible for the bulk of the increase in CO2 and therefore all the policies directed towards reducing human CO2 are simply an enormous waste of money and resources.

Popular Posts

On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding

Opening of Abstract
The objective of this research was to test the hypothesis that Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data, produced by NOAA, NASA, and HADLEY, are sufficiently credible estimates of global average temperatures such that they can be relied upon for climate modeling and policy analysis purposes. The relevance of this research is that the validity of all three of the so-called Lines of Evidence in EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding require GAST data to be a valid representation of reality.
and later:
The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with pu…

In a journal of the American Astronomical Society, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, an article:Ultraviolet Flux Decrease Under a Grand Minimum from IUEShort-wavelength Observation of Solar Analogs (link)Dan Lubin, Carl Melis and David Tytler:The Astrophysical Journal Letters, Volume 852, Number 1 AbstractWe have identified a sample of 33 Sun-like stars observed by the International Ultraviolet Explorer(IUE) with the short-wavelength spectrographs that have ground-based detections of chromospheric Ca ii H+K activity. Our objective is to determine if these observations can provide an estimate of the decrease in ultraviolet (UV) surface flux associated with a transition from a normal stellar cycle to a grand-minimum state. The activity detections, corrected to solar metallicity, span the range , and eight stars have log . The IUE-observed flux spectra are integrated over the waveleng

The Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand has an entry on the Eastern Rockhopper Penguin (link):Between the 1940s and the 1980s the population of rockhopper penguins breeding on New Zealand’s Campbell Island decreased by about 94%. Drastic declines have been reported throughout much of the species’ circumpolar subantarctic range. The cause is unknown, but one reason could be the increasing sea-surface temperatures since the Second World War, causing changes to the availability of their prey. Could rockhopper penguins be the harbingers of global warming? Some scientists think so.Hmmmm.....another outcome from man-made global warming?

Or perhaps the cause of the decline was caused by land slips as recorded by the New Zealand Government Conservation Blog:The survey also monitored what effect recent slips have had on the penguin populations. Initial observations had suggested that up to one fifth of the colony had been affected by these natural slips.
The 2015 population count headed by Jo H…